Submitted to: Dr.

Patwant Atwal

Submitted by: Goldy (18135) Priya (18137)

Introduction

Every time there is a crisis in the political management of the nation, a horde of experts swarm in decrying the pattern of democracy, based on the British system, demanding its replacement by a Presidential form of government like the one functioning in the United States. The presidential system, also known as executive government, is distinguished by a singular figure who presides over the government by the will of the people. The president directs the administrative affairs of the country, and usually oversees foreign relations. Unlike a dictator, he does not possess authoritative powers but is subject to the laws of the nation.

Some countries, such as France have similarly evolved to such a degree that they can no longer be accurately described as either presidential or parliamentary-style governments, and are instead grouped under the category of semi-presidential system.

But a distinct advantages for India, if it goes for presidential system would be that the states will have elected governors. An elected governor is a powerful figure. He would bring stability in states which generally face political ups and downs and where the chief ministers do not last in office for long. A Governor; if elected for five years will be expected to remain in office for the whole term. he will therefore be able to initiate and implemented the development programs without interruption and state will stand to benefit.

Meaning
A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch is led by a president who serves as both head of state and head of government. In such a system, this branch exists separately from the legislature, to which it is not responsible and which it cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss.

Definition
A system of government in which the powers of the president are constitutionally separate from those of the legislature.

By- Walter Bagehot,

"Under a Presidential government, a nation has, except at the electing moment, no influence; it has not the ballot-box before it; its virtue is gone, and it must wait till its instant of despotism again returns."

Does India Need Presidential Form For Government ?

Our national leaders chose the Parliamentary system of government for India to revitalize the society. During the formative years, the Congress provided political stability. The one party system led to misrule and there was a rise of several regional parties. Parliamentary system is considered to be the better option for our country. Due to the instability of our coalition governments, some suggestions to try our hand at the Presidential form of government have been made.

Function Of Presidential System

The presidential system can have either two political parties or a plurality. In some multiparty countries, like Mexico, a simple a majority wins the election, while in France, runoff elections are held until one party earns more than half the votes. If one political party controls the executive branch and the other the legislative, gridlock or paralysis can occur. Political leaders form alliances to pass legislation, but quickly dissolve them without removing one party from power.

Significance
Elections are held at fixed times. Neither the president nor legislature can call for new elections. Although the president is elected by the people, he can be removed from office by the legislature in cases of corruption. Fixed terms mean that a president can achieve lame-duck status months, if not a year or more, before leaving office, creating inertia or uncertainty in government action.
.

Essay And Article On : Opting For A Presidential Form Of Government !!

This system is successful in United States. It is not easy to amend the Constitution. Unless we make a sincere effort to root out dishonesty and corruption, no system will be effective. When India achieved her independence, some sort of Parliamentary VV institutions were already functioning both at the central and provincial levels. Our national leaders chose the Westminster model of Parliamentary system for India after weighing the merits and demerits of both the Presidential and Parliamentary forms of government. India had inherited a semi-feudal, caste ridden society, ripped apart because of the partition. At that time, our pluralistic society had a stagnant economy; our leaders felt that elections, i.e., adult suffrage would create awareness in the rural masses about their rights and would thus help to curb social backwardness. The concept of a welfare state within a democratic framework was approved for Independent India. During the formative years of India, Congress, under the leadership of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, provided political stability to the country. But the one- party dominance of the Congress eventually led to misrule. The concept of federalism was dropped in favor of a strong centre. Till the mid-60s, the party enjoyed the support of the masses but it began to decline with the death of Pt. Nehru. During the period 1966 to 1975, Indira Gandhi, as Prime Minister worked towards the centralization of powers and strengthened her power base. But during the last two decades Indian politics has witnessed the emergence of regional parties in almost all states. They are not only important for the respective states, but also play a major role in deciding the ruling alliance at the centre. Traditionally, Parliamentary systems have been considered to be better for a diverse and huge country like India. By and large, our Parliamentary democracy has succeeded in protecting our rights and freedom. Despite the blemish of emergency, Parliamentary democracy has not only survived but flourished in India. Parliamentary democracy is also highly educative. The problems of the country are thoroughly discussed in the legislature and the people take keen interest in these debate.

It is argued that in the Parliamentary form of government, the Prime Minister has to go for many populist measures. For the fear of losing election he has to surrender to the wishes of his own party as well as the allied parties. In our country Parliamentary system has given rise to unstable coalition, made up of parties whose main concerns are their regional or state interests. Our political leaders always exploit the prevailing class and caste distinctions in our society. Another emerging trend witnessed in politics is the criminalization of politics. It has led to the entry of criminals into politics. They manipulate the state machineries which have led to corruption in the bureaucracy. Thus the democracy has failed in its endeavor to evolve as a twoway communication system, between the government and the masses. Moreover some sociologists think that Parliamentary government is ineffective in times of war and emergency.

Parliamentary form of government

It is observed that the successive coalition governments in our country have failed to provide stability due to lack of a common ideology. This has made some sociologists to observe that we should opt for a change in the government by accepting the Presidential form of government. The Presidential form of government is that in which the President is the executive head, independent of the legislature. Usually he is elected directly by the people or by a college of electors. In Britain, Canada and Australia there exists Parliamentary form of government. Presidential form of government is practiced in U.S.A. and France. But in France there is combined form of government. The Presidential system of government, established in the United States, has been a source of inspiration for many countries. The system is based on a single executive system which tends to be individualistic. The President is responsible to the Constitution, rather than to the legislature. The powers of the Presidential executive vis-a-vis the legislature and the judiciary are defined. Both the executive and the legislature are elected by the electorate. The members of the legislature cannot seek office in the administration and vice-versa. The legislature cannot be dismissed by the President. The executive and the legislature are independent bodies of the government. The budget and important measures need assent of the legislature. The American President is the head of both the state and the government. The President, being the chief diplomat, formulates the foreign policy. In India, the President is the Constitutional head of the State and the executive. The Constitution of India provides for an indirectly elected President, who holds office for a term of five years. Article 54 of the Constitution states that the President is to be elected by an electoral college consisting of the elected members of both the houses of Parliament and the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the states. Under Article 53, the President is the supreme commander of the defense forces of the Union. But the exercise of the power is regulated by law under the Constitution. Under the administrative powers, he has the power to appoint or remove the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, judges of the Supreme and High Courts and others. Presidential form of government will cause a dramatic change in the political scene. The small regional and local parties will in course of time disappear. They will either Unite or be absorbed by the national parties. Generally Presidential form of government will lead to a two-party system beginning with a broad alliance of likeminded parties. In Presidential form of government, President may take only such measures which are beneficial for the country. Because President has a fixed tenure and has no fear of losing his office.

President has to be a person who has a clear vision of India, unlike those who only care for their castes, religion or areas.

There is a dogma that the Parliamentary system of government is a basic feature of our Constitution. Unless corruption is rooted out from the grassroots, a changeover to Presidential system will merely result in the installation of irresponsibility and autocracy. As power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. From where shall we get a clean President and a nationally inspired electorate to keep him under control? In order to save our democracy all of us should make a sincere and concerted effort to root out dishonesty and corruption. Unless there is sincerity and commitment towards the common good, no system will be effective. In the Parliamentary form of government, the Parliament is supreme, and the governments, comprised of some members of the Parliament, are accountable to it. Some of the best exam is the governments in Britain, India, Australia and Canada.

Features of Parliamentary Government

1. Nominal or Titular Head:

In a Parliamentary form of government, there two heads, namely, nominal and real. The nominal head is one who, though head of the state, is not head of government. His powers are more apparent than real. He may be hereditary or elected. The British Queen is not elected. She got the throne on the heredity. But the President of India who is also a nominal head has been el Parliamentary-government the real powers are exercised by a Council of Ministers by a Prime Minister.

2. Collective Responsibility and Individual Responsibility:

The C Ministers is collectively responsible to the lower house of the legislature. It policy decisions collectively and it collectively goes out of office when it loses thee of the lower house of the legislature. A minister may express his disagreement policy when it is discussed in the cabinet meeting, but he has to defend and support the cabinet takes the decision. A minister is also individually responsible to the P for the acts of omission and commission of his department.

3. Political Homogeneity:
The ministers, normally being members of political party, share the same ideology and approach. Even when there is a c government, the ministers are committed to a common minimum programmed. B single party government and a coalition government, there is a fair amount of h and cooperation among the ministers. However, a single party government is homogeneous than a multyparty coalition government.

4. Harmony between Executive and Legislature:

In a Parliamentary government the ministers are drawn from the legislature. As ministers, they are part of the executive. They also remain members of the legislature. Thus the dual identity of ministers con to a harmonious relationship between the executive and the legislature.

5. Rigidity of Party Discipline:

In a Parliamentary government, the party discipline is rigid. The members of a political party whether in power or in opposition are required to defend and support the stand of their party on any issue both in the legislature and outside.

6. Leadership of the Prime Minister:

The Prime Minister is the leader of the C of Ministers. On his advice, the ministers are appointed and dropped. They stay in during his pleasure. He presides over the meetings of the cabinet. He exercises preponderant influence in domestic policy as well as foreign policy. He is more powerful and important than any other member of the cabinet. It has been rightly observed that "he (Prime Mi is central to its (ministry's) birth, central to its life and central to its death."

Some Other Important Features of Presidential System

1. President is the Real Head:

In the Presidential system, the President is the real head. He is the head of state as well as the head of government.

2. Separation of Powers:
There is separation of powers. The President is elected by people. Neither he nor his ministers are drawn from the legislature. They are not accountable to it. They are independent of the legislature. He has a fixed tenure. He cannot be easily ousted from office by the legislature. The only method of his ouster from office is impeachment which is a very difficult process. On the other hand, the President also cannot dissolve the legislature. Further, the judiciary is independent of both the executive and the legislature. Thus, there is not only separation of powers, but also check and balance in the Presidential system.

3. Ministers are accountable to the President:

The President appoints his ministers (or secretaries) who stay in office during his pleasure. They do not belong to the legislature. Nor are they responsible to it. They are appointed on the basis of their experience and expertise. They are 'President's men'. He can remove them from office if he is not happy with.

Advantages of presidential systems

Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:

Direct elections in a presidential system, the president is often

elected directly by the people. To some, this makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly. However, this is not a necessary property of a presidential system. Some presidential states have an unelected or indirectly elected head of state.

Separation of powers a presidential system establishes the

presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Supporters say that this arrangement allows each structure to monitor and check the other, preventing abuses.

Speed and decisiveness

Some argue that a president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. However, others argue that the separation of powers slows the system down.

Stability

A president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.

Direct elections In

most presidential systems, the president is elected by popular vote, although some such as United States use an electoral college (which is itself directly elected) or some other method. By this method, the president receives a personal mandate to lead the country, whereas in a parliamentary system a candidate might only receive a personal mandate to represent a constituency. Since prime ministers are not elected directly, it could be argued their mandate to lead is not a personal mandate and therefore less legitimate.

Separation of powers

The fact that a presidential system separates the executive from the legislature is sometimes held.

Speed and decisiveness

Some supporters of presidential systems claim that presidential systems can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than parliamentary ones.

People's President In the USA, the President is directly elected

by people. He has thus reason to think that he enjoys more of people's confidence and support than the Prime Minister in the Parliamentary system.

More Suitable for Multi-Party System:The

multiparty system is prone to political instability. Political parties with different interests pull the political system in diff directions. In order to check this, there is the need of a strong executive and the President government is best suited to establish stability in a multiparty system.

Symbol of National Unity and Integrity: The Presidential

executive is of help in forging unity in the nation consisting of diverse regions, communities and cult As he is directly elected by people, they look upon him as the symbol of their unity.

Disadvantages of Presidential System:

1. Dictatorial:
The Presidential executive is likely to be authoritarian. As all executive powers are concentrated in the hands of the President and as he is not accountable to legislature, he may be tempted to abuse powers and behave The Presidential system is too rigid to adapt it to sudden changes in circumstances. To manage a crisis, the ministers including the Prime Minister in Parliamentary system can be replaced. But however great the need, the President in a Presidential system cannot be replaced during his tenure.

2. Conflict and Deadlock:

As the President and his ministers are not members of legislature, they find it difficult to persuade the members of the latter to accept' proposals. The legislature is inclined to find fault with the President, and vice versa. conflict between the executive and the legislature leads to deadlock in the administration.

3. Absence of Accountability:
The executive is not accountable to the legislature. Nor is it accountable to people. The people of America directly elect their President, they cannot recall him even if they find him incompetent or dishonest or useless. President can be removed from office by the legislature through impeachment is a very difficult process.

4. Rigidity:
The Presidential system is too rigid to adapt itself to sudden changes in circumstances. To manage a crisis, the ministers including the Prime Minister in Parliamentary system can be replaced. But however great the need, the President in a Presidential system cannot be replaced during his tenure.

5. Weak Foreign Policy:

In the field of foreign policy, the President of the US has handicaps. He has no power to declare a war even when his country is attacked by enemy. This power belongs to the US Congress. Similarly, the treaty that he may conclude with another country is not valid if it is not ratified by the Senate. There is thus some validity in the comment of Gamer that the Presidential system government is 'autocratic, irresponsible and dangerous'.

Criticism
Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:

Tendency towards authoritarianism

scientists [say that presidentialism is not constitutionally stable.

some political

Political gridlock - The separation of powers of a presidential system

establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this frequently creates undesirable and long-term political gridlock and political instability whenever the president and the legislative majority are from different parties, which is common because the electorate usually expects more rapid results from new policies than are possible. In addition, this reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.

Impediments to leadership change it is claimed that the

difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem.

Conclusion

Since India is a huge country that is still in the process of developing and that which has tons of religion and caste I believe that a parliamentary system of government is best suited. People are dying for their voices to be heard and grievances can be addressed well only when the leader is more accessible. A presidential system becomes more inaccessible for the people as there are so many illiterate people in this nation. And in a parliamentary system all the various grievances can be discussed and action can be brought about accordingly by various parties and not just one voice. In conclusion, I agree with some posts that a democracy must represent its people. Perhaps no system in history represents the people more that the parliamentary form of government. However, Indian politicians DO NOT represent the people rather they are in office for their own self-interests. To add insult to injury, our country suffers from illiteracy, which makes it extremely tough for the people to understand and ultimate take charge of the situation.